Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner

Denis Bouyssou and Thierry Marchant

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, vol. 62, issue 9, 1761-1769

Abstract: The standard data that we use when computing bibliometric rankings of scientists are their publication/ citation records, i.e., so many papers with 0 citation, so many with 1 citation, so many with 2 citations, etc. The standard data for bibliometric rankings of departments have the same structure. It is therefore tempting (and many authors gave in to temptation) to use the same method for computing rankings of scientists and rankings of departments. Depending on the method, this can yield quite surprising and unpleasant results. Indeed, with some methods, it may happen that the “best” department contains the “worst” scientists, and only them. This problem will not occur if the rankings satisfy a property called consistency, recently introduced in the literature. In this article, we explore the consequences of consistency and we characterize two families of consistent rankings.

Date: 2011
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (30)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21544

Related works:
Journal Article: Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner (2011)
Working Paper: Ranking scientists and departments in a consistent manner (2011)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:jamist:v:62:y:2011:i:9:p:1761-1769

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1532-2890

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology from Association for Information Science & Technology
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().